Why invade Afganistan CC? They didn't attack us.

After that you're pretty pie-in-the-sky with the "stop this stop that" How would you stop terrorist training and tell muslim schools what to teach? I mean really CC. If all we had to do was ask..............

Frankly, if folks did not encourage the terrorists by calling them "minutemen" and "patriots" instead of the butchers they are...while condemning everything the Bush and Blair administrations are doing to fight them...it would help a lot. Just calling the action in Iraq a "quagmire" or "another Vietnam" provides the terrorists a great deal of encouragement. It is no accident that terrorist leaders quote democratic leaders to build morale.
As far as giving countries an ultimatum after Afghanistan....that is exactly what we did to Iraq.....

As far as having the "world behind us"...it will never happen when even our own countrymen (liberals) will not get behind the war on terror.

so Flint, we should blindly follow the administration? Or are questions allowed?

So you do have answers to stopping terrorism. Well, let's see how you score:

1. We went after Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban, then moved on. What exactly is in Afghanistan at the present that is still worth invading, other than opium crops? Are there strongholds of terrorism there, or just a couple roving bands of baddies causing everyone grief and raising to the skies the occasional rocket launcher? Why even Afghanistan? Is use of Afghanistan part and parcel to a positive PR campaign for the U.S.? Is it because the country was an easy pushover? The mere fact that Afghanistan is a BTDT endeavor will raise suspicion that we have:
A) returned to exploit some sort of pro-U.S. oriented spin meant to make us look better; and...
B) have returned because we didn't get the job done in the first place.
If "B" is thought by the countries we wish to put a good image toward, then we will risk losing more credibility than we already have lost.

2. Refer to 1 -- we are alone in this fight except for GB and a few token countries. According to many, including The Left, our world credibility has been destroyed because of Iraq. So thinking we'll get any support, and at the same time, execute your A through D options, is a futile waste of time. As Len states "...if all we had to do is ask..."

3. You sound like a fervent Bush supporter on that one.

4. On this one, you sound like an agent trying to boost the broken image of a Hollywood debutante busted on a three-strikes crack possession beef. What exactly will a PR campaign involve? "America's great" commercials running during Monday Night Football?

5. Muslim leaders? Find one who isn't or wasn't once corrupted by prior or current U.S. leadership, and can now be trusted by current and future administrations - vis-a-vis a leader who won't lie in our face while stabbing us in the back. Then you say: Those who are not, they better do the above or else. Does that mean we'll invade their country and depose their leadership? Again, this sounds strangely Bush-like...

Your ideas, while well intentioned, lack a fundamental ingredient in global policy and negotiation, which is called "history." It seems as if through your proposal that anything that has already happened between the U.S. and the Muslim world should get thrown out the window, and everyone should basically call it even. However, that sort of clean slate proposition can't work while terrorists in these countries (Afghanistan, I guess...) are terrorizing the world based on long histories of Western duress, but doing so with the support of local governments who have been used and abused by the same Western duress, whether or not that duress comes from prior or current U.S. administrations, or other westernized nations.

I have to say, and I don't mean to be offensive, that though thought out, your ideas seem strangely "straw man" like in the sense that they feel set up to fail. But at the same time, your actions if these ideas aren't followed, appear similar to a "you're either with us or against us" policy, which is much like the policy that involved us in Iraq today.

Afgahanistan housed Al Qaeda, blessed Al Qaeda, and assisted Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.

All we "have to do is ask?" No "asking" here...demanding. Afganistan doubly served as proof we are serious. No, this would be a demand.

The goal is to eradicate terrorism. There is nothing "worth" invading except to eradicate terrorism. That is and should be the goal.

Why Afghanistan? See my response to Lendaddy. This is about terrorism. This is the goal and should be our focus.

I agree with the loss of world credibility. If this was done after Afghanistan, we would've had the world support. This is the first time I recall when we did not have world support, especially like this. Iraq and the approach was a bad idea as well as the reasons/goals here. Terrorism should be our focus, and the world would've been on our side. That's one of the reasons I get so frustrated. Our window of opportunity is gone.


I'm and many are not "anti-war" by any means. We just want to address the issue of terrorism. We don't feel Iraq is doing that.

Hiring the best in PR (hell they already have in Rove), and come up with solutions. The 9/11 report offers some good suggestions on this line. This is the key. Without it, it'll never ever end...endless circle that continues to grow.

No, I said see above...which means rid terrorists or invade.

That's not what strawman means. Strawman means that you take a ridiculous argument and say that's my position (e.g., I support the terrorists when in reality I do not support terrorists, I don't support Bush's decision to invade Iraq).

I ask you this....the plan the administration has given....all we have to do is invade a teeny country in the world like Iraq and all the terrorists will go there to die, then give them an election, and peace and love will spread to the ends of the earth and the terrorists will go away...how realistic is this? My solution is much more comprehensive for addressing terrorism.

Actually, no we didn't (regarding terrorists/terrorism). We went into a country talking about WMDs, and ignored all other countries (including that country's natural enemy, Iran) with WMDs. The message was not to eradicate terrorists out of your country (and all of you eradicate, countries of the world, or else), the message was..only you have to get rid of those WMDs...no one else has to.....

Oh, and I forgot a point. Get more Arabic speaking people in the CIA. As of last year, we had exactly 6, yes 6 arabic speaking people. As of now, it's almost impossible to infiltrate, gather intelligence, and destroy as it stands. Though, I'm of the hope they are working on this.

Isn't it interesting that the only liberals that will actually propose a solution (other than impeach Bush)...propose exactly what we are doing/have done but feel the outcome would have somehow worked better if done by a liberal. Of course the liberal leadership espouses that doing nothing will cause the folks who happily strap bombs to their wives and children to kill Americans or even women and children of their own country will suddenly give up terrorism and want to be friends.

How do you figure? None of this is being done. And "being friends with terrorists"? Who the hell said that?

Oh yeah.....all you have are strawman arguments. That's the only thing you're good at.

And you're under the false belief that Iraq is addressing terrorism. What a joke.

Looks like a few Kool Aid drinkers think we have Afghanistan under control.

If so, who do you folks think it was that shot down the troop helicopter last Tuesday?

This administration doesn't seem to have a clear concept of "finishing a task." Last I heard, 85% of Afghanistan was under the control of Taliban and/or local warlords. Why hasn't become a big magnet for "terrorists?" Maybe because of the deals cut by Karzai. Maybe because 26 years of more or less continuous war have left insufficient infrastructure to exploit.

And, of course, the administration makes sure little if any news from Afghanistan gets to us.

Oh, and by the way, I'm eager to see evidence that anyone here put up post saying we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan. I see references to that idea from time to time by some of the more paranoid and fearful, but I think it's just another imaginary threat.

Techweenie

It just slays me that some actually belive all we have to do is invade a teeny country in the world like Iraq and all the terrorists will all go there to die, then give them an election under heavy security presence, and peace and love will spread to the ends of the earth and the terrorists will go away...how realistic is this?

How in the hell did they become so unrealistic and gullible?

The US elected the President that it thought could best lead us in this endeavor. We are stuck with him for four years...like it or not. If we are so upset with his performance, elect someone from the other party next time.
There is a big difference between asking questions and blatantly handicapping/sabotaging our efforts throughout the world. Time after time we see claims made here and on the front page of the paper that are almost always proven untrue or only partially true. If there is a retraction, it is one line on page 32. The lies are continually repeated here and elsewhere by the Democratic leadership. In just one thread on this BBS yesterday, Our president was quoted far out of context once and blatantly misquoted later. While I assume the person who posted it here actually thought it was true (because it said so on dozens of news sites and liberal web blogs)....it turns out...as always, that it was not. The same is true about the 60 Minutes forgeries about the "bush desertion," the Quran that were supposedly flushed down toilets, the torture at Gitmo (never happened), the wedding parties we intentionally bomb (to keep them from reproducing, I guess) etc...all were false, but have cost us a great deal of support at home and abroad. We have not killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and, in fcat, have lost a great deal of US soldiers preventing the loss of innocent lives. We did not intentionally shoot an Italian agent for transporting a communist leaning newspaper writer out of Iraq to keep her quiet (it has been months...where is the important "info" she claimed she had?). Even the Abu Grabass case was blown far out of proportion and stayed on the front pages for months when the simple truth was...the abuses were discovered and reported by the army long before and the army was in the process of prosecuting the offenders. Even the crap about us taking the Iraqi's oil and Cheney and Bush profitting from the war...Any person with a second grade education knows better....but continually repeating it eventually stirs up the populace in many third world countries who do not know better. When the democratic leadership stands up and calls this "another Vietnam" and "a quagmire," they clearly encourage the enemy who quotes them for propaganda. Just as in Vietnam, as long as there is a strong antiwar movement which is able to chip away support for the government, the enemy will correctly assume that their murderous tactics are effective (effective enough to effect elections in Spain and Germany). As long as they are effective...they will continue...so expect this to continue the rest of your life unless things change.
It is one thing to question your leadership and another to be a fool/patsy for the terrorists.

CC: if you had listened to Limbaugh for 14 years like I have, it would be clear that there is an 'alternate reality' for the more gullible.

It's not a new phenomenon. Every cult operates on the same principles: one source of information; all that disagree are blasphemers/suppressives/dream-stealers/infidels, etc.

Just a few minutes' listening and it's all very clear: the radio entertainers on the right [RER] have tapped into a great floating anger in the population and given it form and direction. In the Limbaugh world (though it applies to several entertainers), there is internal consistency, but little connection to reality.

In this little political petrie dish of OT, I drop in issues that are not covered by the radio entertainers from time to time, and it's amusing to see the lack of coherent response. It appears some here literally have to be told what to think -- and since so many world events are not addressed by the RER, they have no answers or dismiss the events/facts as 'not real' or 'media fiction.'

It was shotdown by an innocent little wedding party. In all their Afghan-wed-exuberance, they started shooting randomly in the air. They feel terrible about it. They were just gathered for a wedding, after all. :rolleyes:

Seriously weenie; are you suggesting that Afghanistan is OUT OF CONTROL? . . .kinda sounds like ya are.

ya know, "control" is a relative term. Your misuse of the word, I'm sure, is caught by most who would read it .. ..but what about the young, impressionable types?

Think about the children, tech . . .the young, impressionable, liberal children here. :cool: :D :cool:

Man, that explains a lot!

Why would you do that to yourself?

Well put Fint, anyone who dismisses what you just posted, will be dead wrong.

It's weird, but I've noticed that too. Especially if the information is released at off times when these hacks are not airing. They seem to not have much of an "opinion" until it's later "discussed" on these talk shows (I note this especially on another forum that I go to that's dedicated to politicial issues.)

If one stopped calling other posters names long enough to look into the demographics and terrain of Afghanistan, they would see that approximately 85% of the country is practically inhabitable with little population. With the current size of our military and current ongoing operations...only a fool would suggest we spread troops all over such a desolate region so it is "under control."

Wow, such a confused post. Drinking a bit early today huh?
If the administration is keeping news from Afghanistan from you...then how do you know that 85% of the country is not under control..or that a helicopter was shot down last week?
Then strangely enough..in the same post you claim that Afghanistan is not a "magnet for terrorists" and you cite a helicopter that was just shot down there by the same. I guess you thought that another one of your "wedding parties" actually shot it down when firing RPGs into the air to celebrate.

40,000,000 people listen to the right wing radio entertainers and many apparently avoid any input from any other source. So it's probably related to 30+ years of marketing teaching me to 'understand your audience.'

Speaking of which, it's futile to converse with people who have zero intellectual honesty, and a handful of people here fall into that category. If you want to see a complete, mindless denial of a long chain of well documented facts, read this thread starting on page 4. It earned fint sole occupancy on my 'ignore' list.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=162044